Slashdot Mirror
Has Nintendo Lost Its Edge?
Thanks to GameSpy for their 'Spy/CounterSpy' editorial discussing whether Nintendo has lost its way in the increasingly competitive gaming world. On the one hand, an editor argues: "One of the few concrete things [Nintendo have] said is that the successor to GameCube is coming out sooner, rather than later, but what's the point if it's as lacking in software as its two predecessors? Or if the software is as samey as the current stuff?" But on the other, there's counterpoint and optimism: "In fact, it's the companies with lots of resources who are falling behind in the race who typically come up with the biggest and riskiest innovations. Given Nintendo's ability to create good hardware and its strategic position in the handheld space, that could mean some VERY cool things in the future."
Poor Nintendo... a mere $572 million in profits. How can they ever survive? Seems hopeless, eh?
With such pathetically unoriginal titles like Pikmin, Warioware, and Metroid Prime, it seems like the Gamecube is little more than trash that they through out because they refuse to let well-enough alone.
What Nintendo really needs is to start pumping out some derivative First-Person shooter titles with laggy internet support so I can get my ass kicked by cocky assholes with bad grammar.
Scratched Emulsion
Why is everything good in the world constantly dying? I just switched over to the dying Apple OS, Mac OS X. It has been the best OS I have ever run. (Not to say it doesn't have its deficiencies, but overall I have enjoyed the experience a lot more than anything else) I own a PS2 and a Gamecube, I have an X Box in the house. The PS2 is in my brothers room, I don't play it that much. The X Box hardly gets turned on by anyone. The Gamecube is in my room so I can readily play it. I used to buy all the games, but I am slowly becoming everything I ever hated, and don't have the time for all of the good games. So I can only play the cream of the crop, which I have found tends to be my Gamecube. I find that my Gamecube is the best of all the systems. I find that I wouldn't trade my Mario Golf, F Zero GX, Super Mario Sunshine, Mario Party 4, Super Smash Brothers Melee, for anything. I've even found the games that are available on other platforms are better on my Gamecube (i.e. Soul Caliber 2).
If this is what dying things are like, I hope that more things that I currently enjoy go into a perpetual state of dying.
I'm beginning to see parallels between Apple and Nintendo, particularly in predictions about their demise. How many articles have their been since gamecube came out saying that Nintendo was going down the tubes?
The fact is, the gamecube is an excellent platform and there are a huge number of great games available, (not as many as PS2, but plenty). They also have a dedicated fan base that's not likely to embrace either of the other platforms any time soon. For those who complain that they have too many "kids" games, there will always be lots of kids playing games, so it's not like they'll have a declining market. For that matter, so many of their games are great for any age: windwaker, animal crossing, soul caliber 2, various sports games...how are these for kids only?
Why does Nintendo get bashed so much? What, you'd rather support Microsoft or Sony?!
Facts are stubborn things.
Worst of all, in my opinion, was the system's mediocre performance. Games generally seemed to have less polygons than similar PlayStation titles and had terribly blurry textures and sub-SNES quality music. The hardware that had looked so hot in 1996 aged incredibly quickly, and many gamers noticed.
Play any title that's on both PSX and N64...tell me which is better. Tony Hawk for instance.
The Playstion is a horrid splash of bouncing, jaggie-filled, sparkling textures, and the N64 version is a smooth, antialiased, 3D world.
i don't understand why people think ninteno is going to die. they own the handheld market and they're making a profit. i bought a gamecube just to play the gba games on the gba player, and it was a much better purchase than my xbox. this is coming from someone who has been dogging nintendo since the n64 debacle. once you give the games a chance, it becomes clear why nintendo isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
The Gamecube really does not suffer from a lack of titles. The reason that it isn't selling well in the U.S. is the perception that there is a lack of titles. The console business is all about marketing and image these days. People will buy what their friends have and what they think is cool. I have both a GC and a PS2. While there are more games that I can purchase for the PS2, there are more games I want to play on the GC, by far. I had been planning on buying a Gamecube because I really wanted to play Metroid Prime and Zelda. Unfortunately I decided to "research" my decision on the web and everything I read said that the GC was inferior to the PS2. I hate to say it but I think the inertia of the market is going to continue for a while longer. Nintendo will wane. Xbox will wax. PS2 will continue to dominate.
Endless games with Mario in them? For the Gamecube, that would be... let's see... Mario Golf, Mario Party 4, and Super Mario Sunshine? Oh, right, and if you really want to count it, Super Smash Bros Melee. With two more coming - Mario Party 5, and Mario Kart: Double Dash.
Yup. That's the GC library. Except, of course, for Zelda, Metroid, Eternal Darkness, Pikmin, F-Zero, and Nintendo's lock on the Super Monkey Ball, Rogue Squadron, and Resident Evil series.
As you said, Nintendo's games are not much different from what they did before. So perhaps its your idea of fun that's changed, not Nintendo's games.
In a given year, Nintendo will make 2-3 of the best games of the year. Last year they did Eternal Darkness and Metroid Prime. This year, it looks like Zelda and F-Zero, though with Mario Kart, Pikmin 2, and their Metal Gear Solid remake, all still coming out this year, they might easily get another. On top of these instant classics, they line the edges with games that are great and worth owning - Pikmin, Mario Golf, etc.
There is no other game company that comes close to that level of quality, for either consoles or PCs. Blizzard takes 2-3 years to come out with one game as great as Zelda, Metroid, or Eternal Darkness.
Considering that, I can't imagine buying a console other than the Nintendo console. Especially since the alleged highlights of other systems - Final Fantasy X, Grand Theft Auto 3, and Halo, for instance, did nothing for me.
So, do I think Nintendo has lost its edge?
I think Nintendo are the only people left who have an edge.
Philip Sandifer's academic website
The fact that it couldn't play DVDs, and the other two consoles could, definitely kept me from seriously considering it.
People who only have enough money for one console, probably look for the one with the most functionality. Especially if they are looking to get it for their kids.
Get off my launchpad!
Given Nintendo's ability to create good hardware
This statement perplexes me. How can you equate overheating N64's, asinine controllers, stupid battery backups in your stupid carts, etc. good hardware?
Nintendo admitted that they fuck stuff up on purpose with the Advance SP. WHY did you remove the ordinary, industry-standard, easy to use 1/8" headphone connector, Nintendo? Oh yeah. So you could trick us into buying "the perfect game boy" and then rip us for $15 for your stupid fucking cable.
Hey Taco! Looks like you're using the "infinite monkeys and typewriters" scheme to generate Ask Slashdots again...
I couldn't agree with you more. I own all three systems and have been an avid gamer since the Atari 2600 / Intellivision days.
I bought my GC and XBOX within a month of each other. That was about a year ago. At the time I had no idea that 1 year later I'd own 10 GC games and only three XBOX games.
To be honest with you Nintendo are the only ones doing anyhting different. Sure the characters are the same but the games are inovative and fun.
XBOX and PS2 re-hash the same tired games with the same tired graphics. There all either car games or first person games. XBOX and PS2 are just tired and boreing for the most part.
People really need to give the GC chance and acutally play some of the games before they knock it.
I am going to take issue with you saying they still have the stigma of being the "family system". Why is that a stigma? Are kids, or for that matter adults, too "cool" for platformers, or what amounts to an adventure/RPG, or some of the other original games they've put out recently?
Not everything in life is about shooting up the bad guys or watching the bouncing polygonal boobs. Nintendo realizes that, and I for one applaud them for sticking to their guns.
This is my sig. There are many others like it, but this one is mine.
It's apparently that time of year again (quarterly, right?) when someone decides Nintendo has had it. And it amazes me that it's always for one (or more) of the same reasons...small number of games, lack of originality, lack of FPS games, it isn't the , etc.
Nintendo has a niche. It occupies and fulfils that niche extremely well. Other consoles aren't going to take its niche. Its niche (two, really) is 1) Game Boy, 2) fun, non serious games. There haven't been competitors for it since Sega's handheld that died out (but was arguably better than the Game Boy...little larger, backlit, etc). The backwards compatibility of the GB ensures that people will keep buying it since there are quality games of all genres represented that you can get for CHEAP (read: under $10 on eBay).
Gamecube would have to be my choice, if only because the XBox and PS2 seem to be copying the PC mentality of games, only without the control interface (I like the mouse). Playing the PS2 is fun, but it's fun in the same way Quake was fun. Nintendo opens a completely separate world, one that you can only get (well done, at least) on consoles.
Mostly, that's side scrolling arcade games, what Nintendo did FAMOUSLY back in the 80's/90's. With exception to Commander Keen, I haven't played a lot of side scrolling PC games that I really dug. Mega Man, Castlevania, Mario, Life Force, all these are side scrolling games that were/are Nintendo 's bread and butter. They aren't complicated, don't involve every button and you can play for just a few minutes. There are still lots of people that like them, so Nintendo isn't going away anytime soon.
--trb
>Nintendo is doing more innovation with its system
>than either X-Box or Sony.
Yes, the whole GC-GBA connectivity is SO much more advanced over online gaming on the Xbox and PS2 (yes, I am being sarcastic).
The only difference between Sony's online offering and Nintendo's is that Sony is putting more support into it. Otherwise, both companies did the same thing: offer an online adapter and let the developers decide how to support it. At the least, Nintendo's working with it in terms of LAN gaming, though they are definitely not doing much to support playing online.
And what exactly is the point in totally redesigning a controller each time? The GC one is far from perfect - the D-Pad is WOEFUL, the sticks are different to each other and the Z button is useless.
The problems with the Xbox pad are exaggerated, and the Controller S is a million times better anyway.
Sony didn't need to redesign their controller, just improve the analog sticks. Of the three, Sony's analog control is the worst, though I must admit I won't touch the Controller S on my XBox, because the original full-sized controller works much better for me and doesn't have the weird placement of some of the buttons that is seen on the S. The analog control on the full-sized XBox controller was what made me realize the Sony controllers were not quite up to it. The Nintendo controller sealed it.
As for particular issues with the Nintendo controller, I agree with the basic premise behind your complaints about the D-pad and Z button, but you're exaggerating those problems at least as much as anyone I've seen talking about problems with the larger XBox controller. I prefer that the sticks be different, as they should have different uses. The D-pad is setup as a secondary (or tertiary) interface, and isn't meant to be used the way the D-pad was used on older systems (and the way I still use the D-pad on my PS2). At least both Nintendo and Microsoft put the analog stick in the primary at-rest position of the left thumb.
And how is MP innovative?!? It is just Metroid in 3D!
Metroid in 3D, in first-person, with a very different control scheme, solid story line. Bleh, Metroid in 3D all alone would be enough for the title to be at the very least different from the pack. What's so rehashed about it that you feel the need to act like Metroid in 3D is explanation enough?
>The newest Zelda game has some of the most
>revolutionary graphics I've seen in a while.
It is far from innovative, as it isn't really much further on from the previous N64 Zelda games.
Having not had an N64, I can't say too much, but having the OoT disc for the GC, I'd have to say that, as far as I can tell, you didn't address the statement in the least. The graphics are completely different. I wouldn't have called them revolutionary, because cel-shading is being used on every 10th game being released today, but saying it's not really much further from the N64 titles is rediculous.
>Lastly, is there any multiplayer game more fun
>and unique than Smash Brothers
SMS is just an annoying beat-em-up type game, and there are far better multiplayer games available.
Examples? Any games like it (to address the unique part)? What's annoying about it?
>On the flipside, the X-Box's main draw is
>yet-another-first-person-shooter.
Whereas all Nintendo can offer is yet another sequel.
Oh no, not another sequel. Oh well, I'll just wait for Halo 2 then. Doh! At least I have KOTOR to play for a while. Star What? Damn, did it again...
-PainKilleR-[CE]
The inovative point about Metroid Prime is that they succesfully translated a 2D game in to the 3d world mantaining it's roots!
Most games fail at this, it's very difficult to transform 2D platformes in to the 3d world. I for once DON'T like 3d Games. I stay playing my SNES (Super Metroid), Saturn (Radian Silver Gun, Megaman, Dracula X, Metal Slug, Stree fighters, etc.) and DreamCast (Bangai-o, ikaruga, mars matrix).
There are a feew 3D games that I do like like Metroid Prime and Wolfestein Enem. Territory on the PC
BSD licensed software can't be stolen....
As a dedicated PC gamer, I've been spending a lot of time lately trying to decide which of the three consoles I should buy. I only have a medium sized budget so I can't buy all three or anything.
I'll never understand all of the arguments that you shouldn't get a Game Cube because it doesn't have very many titles. I don't want very many titles, I just want about six great titles a year. My pocket book can't take much more, what with the PC gaming habit and the rent and food and all the other stuff.
On top of that, a big chunk of the best games for Xbox and PS2 will make their way to the PC at some point (GTA, Halo, and so on). Often with a better control scheme. I really don't want to plunk down a bunch of money for redundancy.
Game Cube, here I come.
I have a lot of opinions about Cyborgs and Architects
The fact that it couldn't play DVDs, and the other two consoles could, definitely kept me from seriously considering it.
cost of GameCube + DVD Player = cost of PS2/Xbox
The PS2 DVD player blows. My roommate had a PS2, and we'd often try using it to play DVDs. But half the time I'd end up taking the disc out and putting it in my computer due to the PS2 having trouble. It just doesn't like certain scenes. You pretty much have to buy the DVD remote for the PS2 as using the controller to play a DVD is completely unintuitive.
I know I'd much rather have a GameCube + DVD player combo. About the same cost as a PS2, but better DVD playback. Haven't heard anything about the Xbox's DVD playback quality, but I doubt it tops a dedicated player.
Out of that list, all but one of the first party games are typical Nintendo franchise games. People were moaning about Lara Croft by the time Tomb Raider III was announced - I am sick to DEATH of Mario as he has been around for probably nearly 20 years.
So in your case "Mario" means "any Nintendo property that has had another game come out in the series"? That's an interesting definition.
I suppose my question would be why reinvent the wheel with new characters? Yes, they could have made Mario Golf with characters who weren't Mario characters... but why? Mario is a perfectly good franchise to use for a cartoony golf game.
Perhaps in your opinion they will, but not others. The only game out of that lot deserving high praise is Eternal Darkness. MP was just Metroid in 3D, and not as good as I had hoped. And how can Metal Gear Solid be so critically acclaimed, when it is just a remake of an older game?
I'd say Eternal Darkness is, on the whole, less inventive than Metroid Prime. Eternal Darkness is a Zelda-esque dungeon hack with some shiny insanity effects. It does a great job on them, and so is still a great game, but Metroid Prime takes the first-person-shooter in a direction it had never been taken before. More to the point, it did things with the first person shooter that people said couldn't be done - platforming sections that didn't suck, exploration based gameplay, etc.
And, I mean, what were you hoping for from Metroid Prime? Something that wasn't Metroid?
But Nintendo only developed Zelda themselves - the other two were done by other development studios.
Second party development studios that, with heavy input and control from Nintendo. I do not consider the fact that Nintendo has begun to expand and take in some other development studios to mean that those games are not Nintendo games.
You yourself said that their games do not change much - so how can they have an 'edge' if that is true?
Nintendo continues to do what it's always done - perfect styles of games, and invent new styles of games. Even their new styles of games, though, have a certain... Nintendoness to them. They display elegance of control, and are typically very easy to pick up and play, but not nearly so easy to beat, and harder still to "fully" beat (i.e. unlock everything, get 100% completion, etc).
Regardless, in every genre and style Nintendo has attempted, they are reliably among the best at it.
That seems an edge to me.
Philip Sandifer's academic website
NONE of the super mario games have had the same game play. Ever. With the exception of SMB2 Japan (Lost Levels here in the U.S.).
SMB 1 was the classic, shitty control formula that was ground breaking at the time but doesn't hold up so well.
SMB 2J (LL) was more of the same with diffrent levels. Oh, and Luigi had slightly diffrent control in that one.
SMB 2 was a side scroller, but you didn't kill bad guys by jumping on them, the emphesis ws on throwing things and bad guys.
SMB 3 was slightly like SMB 1, but there were so many game play and control changes as to make it a new game.
SMB World was also, again, similar to 1 and 3. But there was enough of a diffrence to make it unique.
SMB World 2 was NOTHING like any of the others. Mario was barley in it. It was just "Baby Mario" riding on Yoshi's back. Basicly you played Yoshi. Totally diffrent game.
Mario 64 was unique again still. But I though it was bland and uninteresting. They moved to 3D too soon.
Mario Sunshine has something going for it. The water pack makes for fun, diffrent gameplay, and things like the multiple jumps make for lots of crazy manuevering within levels. Maybe if I'd played Mario 64 further through, Id have encountered cool stuff like this, but it just didn't hold my attention.
Zelda I started that series.
Zelda II was a side scroller, and people hated it because it was too diffrent (I think it may have been the best in the series).
Zelda III reminded me of Zelda I a bit. But the first was so simple, and III so complex, that it's hard to compare the two.
Ocarina of Time was like none of the others. It made Hyrule feel like a vast place. Unlike I and III. II did the same. I guess this is why these two are my favorites.
I never played Majora's Mask, but it used OoT's engine. I can understand the two being very similar.
I've hardly played Wind Waker at all, but it seems very OoT like as well, graphics not withstanding.
Pokemon, I can't comment on at all. I've never played any of them.
From my point of view, the biggest thing is that there's no new franchises. Oh wait. Eternal Darkness. Pikmin. Animal Crossing. Damn.
The point is that Critisizing Mario games for being jumping platformers is like critisizing Warcraft for being RTS. Or Half-Life for being FPS. That's just the meat of the series.
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
" I am getting tired of endless games with Mario in them."
Mario's simply a character to Nintendo, not a game formula. It's kind of like saying you're sick of movies that have Edward Norton in them. Could be worse, Mario could be like Jean Claude Van Damme.